SACRAMENTO – Developers, labor unions, corporations, Indian tribes and other interest groups are using “an orgy of independent expenditures” to skirt the campaign contribution limits voters adopted more than seven years ago, the state’s chief elections watchdog said Thursday.

“The people of California have repeatedly voted to limit direct contributions to candidates for state office – most recently (through) Proposition 34 in November of 2000,” said Ross Johnson, the chairman of the state Fair Political Practices Commission.

“It was their desire and expectation that fewer special interest dollars find their way into campaigns. But thanks to an orgy of independent expenditures, just the opposite has occurred.”

It defies logic to suggest that big independent expenditures can’t have an undue influence on candidates and officeholders, Johnson added.

The FPPC said that use of independent expenditures – campaign spending that supposedly isn’t coordinated with a candidate – has jumped more than 6,000 percent in legislative races and more than 5,000 percent in campaigns for governor and other statewide offices since Proposition 34’s limits on donations to candidates kicked in.

That’s resulted in more than $88 million in television and radio ads, brochures and other campaign spending paid for directly by a variety of interest groups.

Unfortunately, Johnson said, there’s not much that the FPPC can do about it, although the commission plans to explore the possibility of adopting regulations that would give voters a better idea of who’s making independent expenditures.

“We are not the Legislature or the Supreme Court,” Johnson said. “The law is what the law is. The statutes we are charged with enforcing are what they are.”

There are no limits on independent expenditures and courts have almost consistently ruled against them so far.

Derek Cressman, government watchdog director of Common Cause, said that at some point California should try to put limits on donations to independent expenditure committees, but he said now might not be the best time because of the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Cressman was one of five witnesses who testified at a nearly two-hour hearing held by the FPPC to look at ways it could respond to the flood of independent expenditures.

Witnesses also suggested:

Requiring campaign ads to more clearly identify the top donors to independent expenditure committees.

Providing public financing to help candidates targeted by independent expenditures.

Making it easier for voters, reporters and others to track independent expenditures on the secretary of state’s Web site.

Expanding disclosure requirements for another growing use of special interest money – issue ads that praise or criticize candidates without calling for their election or defeat.

“I don’t think it’s healthy in a democracy for candidates to be controlling the debate,” Cressman said.